[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
The German government is to give nonwhite invaders preference in the job market and will legally force residential mixing in terms of a new “integration law.”
The law will artificially create 100,000 jobs which will exclusively be allocated to “refugees”—even though there are currently 1.81 million Germans who are unemployed.
To enable this preferential treatment, a currently-existing law which requires employers to give preference to German job applicants will be suspended for three years—in other words, unemployed Germans will be pushed to the back of the seeking-work queue in favor of the nonwhite invaders.
The seasonally adjusted harmonized jobless rate in Germany was, according to Trading Economics, recorded at 4.3 percent in February of 2016, unchanged from the January rate. This means that 1.81 million Germans are out of work.
The proposed law, announced this week by the Angela Merkel government, is being packaged as a measure designed to make “refugees integrate into society in return for being allowed to live and work in the country.”
Under the conservative-socialist coalition government’s measures, the “asylum seekers” will face cuts to their welfare payments if they refuse to attend language classes or “lessons in German laws or cultural basics.”
It has not been said what these “cultural basics” will entail, but, given their behavior in Germany up to this time, they will probably include exhortations not to rape, rob, commit crime, how to use toilets, etc.
The new law will also “punish” the nonwhites if they move away from the white German towns where they have been placed—because the law says the forming of “ghettos” must be prevented.
At the same time, Israel practices racial separatism, seeing no reason to take-on immigrants, let alone assimilate them with integration. On the contrary, the Jews protect their E.G.I. as sacrosanct while compelling others to blend-away theirs with each other.
Whereas he used to have a completely botched notion of post modernity - mixing-up what should be the antidote to modernity and liberalism with liberalism itself - it now appears that we are improving Dugin’s understanding - viz., that modernity is the problem and the essence of liberalism.
His ideas in this talk are largely amenable and well considered.
His proposition that the state is a bit too much of an artifice to suffice by itself and that there needs to be a hypothesized realm, as we would say, beyond the physically verified moment, which girds and orients a people, is also well considered.
However, now that we are getting him to a better understanding of “post moderntiy”, viz. White post modernity, we need to get him to a better understanding of biological reality and “racism.”
Anti-racism is the quintessential modernist liberal notion; it is a Cartesian farce: It has been proposed as innocent but it is not -
Anti-racism is prejudiced, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.
For “racism” is a necessary concept in a benign form, which is not supremacism nor a singular conclusion to aggrandizement and annihilation of an opposing people (as YKW propose and liberals might accept as a definition). It is in fact, a practical concept that is practiced by ordinary people everyday of necessity, as a non-Cartesian requirement of the human condition, of being in the world - one must discriminate in human-sized categories, including social classification - of one’s own people and of other peoples - to form a coherent basis of ones own and to form a basis of human ecologies for our systemic coherence, social accountability, warrant and agency.
These classifications are “hermeneutic”, that is to say that they are not absolutely empirically based in every moment, as the taken-for-granted and the state of partial knowledge - faith, if you will - must subsist behind the working hypothesis.
Call it a working hypothesis, call it faith, call it rules, call it narrative, call it taken for granted, call it the partly unknown, call it a mystery, a quest, an adventure, some of that as you must, some of it you might, as it has practical function to ensconce the under-determining facts of the empirical; but I have believed and continue to believe that a sacred overlay, in orientation and guidance of a people is a good idea.
I believe that it is a hermeneutic notion nevertheless, which is itself accountable to deal concretely with biology, sex and genetics, mediating toward fairness and justice in regards to this social capital - otherwise, without this empirical accountability, this “spiritual” realm will be the realm of evil charlatans.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 13 February 2016 13:05.
I thought the most interesting comment in and around Greg Johnson’s article, Roosh Really is a Rape Advocate (& a Rapist, if He’s Telling the Truth), was Greg’s own, in regard to the woman in Iceland who Roosh claimed to have sex with despite the fact that she was so drunk as to be incapacitated from consenting or not. Greg said that if she agreed to have sex with him the next morning that not only did that not mean she had not been raped the night before, but that consent afterward made it only worse for the fact that it could promote the idea that such behavior would have happy endings (with enough repetitions, it would not have happy endings).
I would like to add that I can well imagine that in a circumstance like that, a woman can agree to have sex with him the next morning and again in an attempt to reinterpret the relationship and her own agentive part in her mind, because it would be too painful to believe that she was violated in a profound way and had no agency. Thus, she might try to go with the idea of superimposing a relational level and her agency retroactively to reframe what was an instance of non-consent if not rape in that episode - re-framed under “a dating relationship with a ‘bad boy’ whose wild side I should be able to handle, being an independent woman and all.”
Speaking of which, that is what makes Roosh so disgusting. This sand ****** said it was his objective and continues to be his objective to have sex with as many beautiful woman as possible - and that he has been teaching men to do that as well. His response to antagonists in the media is that he will accumulate as many more women as he can.
I’m going to harness all this coverage that you are giving me and convert it to money and women
This was my first occasion to hear and see Roosh V. speak. I must say that I am negatively impressed - his attitude, his mannerisms, his way of speaking - bopping, swaying and grooving - his motives and his way of arguing are either entire affectations of black people or his middle eastern background is more n****rish than I had realized.
One thing is certain, he does not think and act like a European man and nobody should respect him as a model as such. He is a sand-wigger. It is no wonder that he is trying to teach White men how to act like n****rs and Muslims - and to have as much respect for White women as a n****r or Muslim would. Nor is it a wonder that he would now try to take cover under a position of Abrahamic religion - that he is promoting a traditional Muslim model of gender arrangements for all.
Neither he, nor the males he teaches, are cultivating a way to pursue relationships with women that they care about, confirming and reconstructing views and European ways that are important, in fact vital to them. No, just the technique to pander to the universally lowest common denominator of their basest instincts and reconstructing that, while going through their cautionary barriers, including White national barriers, and discarding them.
Who does he think he is to target White women - in as many numbers as possible - with his Negroid/Muslim mentality? And who got the idea that it was Ok for him to target White women and others and pursue alpha n****r behavior? Would this sand ****** talk and have people act this way to his sister, Iranian and Armenian women?
She typed in, “How many girls have you been with in Poland?”
“10,000.”
“No, really.”
“A couple.”
“Do you always bring home girls like this?”
“Never on Tuesdays. ”
“Do you want to see me again?”
“Of course. You’re pretty, you’re sexy, you’re fun. I see no reason why I wouldn’t want to see you again.” I kissed her.
Her tiny size really hit me when she took off her heels. I asked her how much she weighed. Thirty-five kilograms (77 pounds). Besides her surprisingly round ass, she had the body of a gymnast who hadn’t quite made it past puberty.
We moved to my bed. I got her down to her bra and panties, but she kept saying, “No, no.” I was so turned on by her beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.
She tried to go down on me but her mouth was too small.
Then I grabbed her and made her sit directly on my face. I ate her pussy, the first time I had done so in a couple of years. I enjoyed it.
I put on a condom, lubed up, and finally got her consent to put it in. The best way to visualize our lovemaking is an elephant mounting a kitten. My dick was half the thickness of her neck. I put her on her stomach and went deep, pounding her pussy like a pedophile.
“At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.”
It would be nice if that happened - I could picture Roosh being held down and fucked by a few giant Polish queers in jail:
“It took four hours and at least thirty attempts to push into his ass: ‘no, Roosh cried, no!’ until the large, very large penis was finally allowed to enter and stretch Roosh’s asshole to his great pain. Ooh the giant faggot sighed upon the most satisfying ejaculation into Roosh’s asshole, you are the finest little bitch! I just know you’ll come back to give me some skull in the morning -
- I think your mouth IS big enough!”
Better still, stay the fuck out of Poland and all of Europe, sand-******.
Only a wigger could admire this guy and find him appealing. He has no place anywhere near WN. Quite the opposite.
Roosh is teaching and promoting R selection strategies among Europeans who are evolved for K selection strategies.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 13 February 2016 11:51.
Alex Linder interviewed (try not to let the Australian accent of his interviewer bother you).
There is or can be a misunderstanding.
- that I simply want to refrain from going ahead and killing Jews et al. on principle, naivete or for petty moral reasons.
- that I and we could not be content nor ever recognize that we’d be better off if they were gone.
But that is not the case.
It is the case rather that it is generally not a good idea to announce that you want to get them all whether you think it is necessary or not.
It would be hard to implement and worse, might work to our detriment if not conceived and promoted properly.
It is not only a strategic matter but a theoretical matter: for what we want ultimately is separatism (killing is a species thereof).
Separatism can be argued not only by broader and more practical metrics, but if it is achieved, it is more feasible for the purpose of killing - as opposed to taking the stance that even while they remain tangled up in our hair, we might succeed in the complex affair of teaching people to know, psychologically, what to do because Alex says so (bold and intelligent though most of his arguments are)...
As opposed to Alex saying so, if they are to be killed it would be for the broadly intelligible, broadly acceptable (therefore possible to facilitate) and operationally verifiable reason that they will not leave us alone when given the option, but insist on their imposition to our exploitation and long term extinction - a verifiable consequence and reason for their imposition - to eliminate us as a people, therefore a highly assertable warrant to preempt it.
This could be demonstrable even in their refusal to allow our benign and fair act of separating and expelling them from our people.
Given these considerations hence, my motto: separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim, separatism is always possible.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 24 January 2016 22:27.
For many years I have argued that Maslow’s hierarchy establishes an excellent point of departure - a paradigm to transform into a new paradigm on our behalf as Whites - as it does represent the apex of the American dream of individual self actualization, it also provides instantiation to look at the problems that can, and quite evidently do, ensue from its rule structure. Hence, a critique of it permits its highly relevant occasion to retool and socialize it to our concern as Whites. To do that we might look back to its classical origins in Aristotle, to its popularization in the feminism and the human potential movements of the 60s, to how we might transform and cast the path of needs and motives in optimal terms for both the individual and group interests of Whites.
However, the right-wing hasn’t yet gotten the significance of my argument. Where they do see merit, they want to put it in their own Cartesian terms. They miss a crucial hermeneutic point in history, that Friedan’s second wave of feminism had women acting through and in accordance of this paradigm - highlighting the vulgarity of its social disregard, self righteously pursuing “self actualization” while ignoring the “privilege” that men alone had of being required at the same time to go to Vietnam to die. But rather than seeing the valid gender aspect of the hippie protest of the draft as a male thing (a quest for midtdasein for males), the right-wing in their desperate, reactionary way, go along with the Jewish story that it was all about “free love”, “civil rights for blacks”, and “universal peace” or they cater to the right-wing story that hippies sought nothing that a real man should pursue - they were part and parcel of the downfall of Whites - our men, by reactionary contrast, have to learn how to be real men: and now the right-wing will be..
Defining real White men for you… with a lisp..
Puerto Ricans in attendance to karate movies and White boys imitating gay pride parades
A return of what? A morning and evening call to prayer, perhaps.
Ignore our many discussions as to the drawbacks of black hyper-masculinity in comparison to terms of optimal White/European masculinity - which need to be confirmed and which only MR has confirmed…
Instead toss the idea with a gay friend..
Who casts black hyper-masculinity in contrast to homosexuality.
Even though you have no special concern for Whites and consider mixing with blacks to be no big deal..
Even though you have no special concern for Whites, latch onto the alt-right big tent to compensate for your floundering market and source of ideas - such as the idea of re-tooling, transforming, viz., socializing, optimizing and normalizing Maslow’s hierarchy in White/European interests (which can be safely ignored as having been discussed at MR for years).
Be a crass businessman
Kiss the ass [Welcome back!] of Jews and their proxies; and on their behalf..
Appropriate Asian lands and resources, allow Jews and neo-liberals to parasitically trade on that..
Aggrandizement as middle men at others expense instead of developing a Russian ethnostate.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 03 October 2015 22:32.
Not a matter of guilt, not even a matter of Christianity, Islam or capitalism, but rather the usual suspects making their agenda clear. This expression shows that something different: Frans Timmermans, the Dutch vice-president of the European Commission, said that “diversity was the future of the world,” and that Eastern European nations would just have to “get used to that.”
It is an unusually brazen assertion of “programmatic coercion” - G.W.
It is a significant statement of the motives of the powers-that-be to impose their programmatic intent to destroy the European genome.
What really is referred to by the word “xenophobia”?
Xenophobia is no human idea, it is not a political ideology. The inherent notion that individuals from other ethnic groups are different is as old as humanity itself.
That political leaders throughout human history have tried to either foment or stifle this innate team spirit does not change its origin or function. Ultimately, while it has often come to be called xenophobia, it is a kind of defense mechanism of an ethnic group. It has a cohesive function but is also vital to the group’s survival.
It is easy to think today that racism is obsolete in modern societies, and political ideas that multicultural and multi-ethnic societies are something we can decide to create, and then use various integration programs as a tool to make this work artificially.
It is important to remember that “xenophobia” has always been the human diversity condition. Without this desire or sense of distinction and boundaries no ethnic group could have existed for very long before it would be adulterated and perish again.
The world’s major ethnic groups; blacks, whites and Asians, and all its subsets of peoples did not come into existence overnight. It has taken nature tens of thousands, if not millions of years to enrich the earth with the human diversity which we have today. The birth of a new ethnic group has always been dependent on a distinct geographic location. For the purpose of various ethnic groups’ birth and continued maintenance, they have always required “xenophobia”, more properly termed “alien skepticism” or “stranger caution” as a prerequisite.
The principle or the basic human function is exactly the same as in individuals. An individual who is not skeptical or cautious when confronted with a stranger will not survive in the long run. This instinct is basically in all living creatures on earth and is deeply rooted.
The function and conclusion of prejudices
“Alien skepticism” or “fear” of the unknown is a kind of first line of defense. Here comes the concept of prejudice. An individual always makes a first assessment of the foreigner—a judgment before it knows any details for sure. We must also understand that individual assessment, when the unknown has become known, can shift from prejudice to “judgment”, a conclusion based on knowledge.
However, today we are told by the modern political system that prejudice is just ignorance and as soon as this ignorance is gone, the foreigner should be welcomed. In fact, the individual’s or group’s conclusion could be that the foreigner cannot necessarily be given a pass, and may intend to cause us harm.
Racists in every expression of the negative sense, of course, are also those who want to cause an ethnic group’s unity and uniqueness to perish through mixing and division. Many nations and entire civilizations during the history of humanity have vanished for this reason. Either by displacement and extinction or by blending them away out of all recognition.
A true defender of the world’s human diversity turns naturally against both extremes of racism and genocide. Moreover, the criminalization of these two extremes is stated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, saying that not only is performance of these acts criminal but it is also criminal to instigate them. Thus, the express intent or encouragement to try to create a multi-ethnic society, which inherently violates the right to the preservation of the ethnic and cultural characteristics of the group, or displacement or eradication of a people, could fall within the scope of this crime. In the UN declaration it says, among other things, that the following shall be considered as genocide:
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life intended to lead to its complete or partial physical destruction; (d) to take measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. “
In the ongoing development of today’s Sweden where a large number of non-European immigrants are coming to the country, a natural segregation process is marked by Swedes who move away from immigrant areas while various immigrant groups cluster together, and those immigrant groups quickly receive a residence permit and can select where in the country they want to stay. In this way the crime referred-to in the last paragraph concerning genocide may be relevant, eg. in cases where parents are not allowed to put their children into any school but are forced to send them to the local multi-ethnic schools where Swedish children in many Swedish schools already are a minority in their own country.
In the next step they might endeavor to create a multi-ethnic society through the use of integration programs, and this could fall within the scope of “hate crimes” because there would be a restriction of the indigenous group’s autonomy.
The general conclusion regarding the question of earth’s ethnic diversity is that the property known as “xenophobia” is a necessary evil. The key instead now is to thwart its extremes. The leading political establishment in general seems to dumb-down and exaggerate the image of our instinct for caution, instincts like defense and self-preservation. This they do, among other things, by trying to characterize as a disease, what is actually an instinct and a function that acts as a guarantor for the conservation of all communities, by using a negative-sounding designation such as “xenophobia”. If there is an “undue fear” of the unknown, its assessment must of course be something that is considered “reasonable” and make sense, and it needs to exist and be expressed.
There has also been a confusion between the fact that ethnic groups are different and should be valued as such, with the idea that ethnic groups are ranked differently, the two are very different things. The most extreme manifestations of the debate would not even concern themselves with the thought that there are different kinds of people on earth.
This is often presented as options of black and white, where either you accept today’s multicultural and ethnic change in Sweden beyond recognition, or you accept hatred and abuse against all immigrants who are in Sweden and the need to advocate a hundred percent purity. Swedes are a generally balanced people and have an absolutely predominant wish for neither of these extremes. Discernment is often the first casualty when debate deteriorates.
Reliance on these extremes and extremists, mainly in politics, business and the media is driving the currently extreme situation. However, what remains and ensures that we can get a more balanced society and social climate in the future, is that our age-old instinct for self-preservation can take on a balanced and natural expression.
Swedes may be very open-minded, but they also have a right to their own preservation.
Let me begin by thanking Massimo D’Alema for organising this conference and for inviting me. As I told him while entering this room, this conference shows we are finally approaching the question of Islam and Europe from the right perspective, after years – or decades - of misunderstandings.
I will start with an anecdote. I graduated two years before 9/11 and it was hard at that time to find a professor who would accept that political Islam could be the subject for a dissertation in political science.
Italy has a great university system, but I had to go to France with the Erasmus programme to find someone who would consider Islam as a topic not for history, or literature, or cultural studies thesis, but for political science.
A lot has changed since then. In the following years the idea of a clash between Islam and “the West” - a word in which everything is put together and confused - has misled our policies and our narratives. Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and what matters most – in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not, this is the reality.
As Europeans, we should be proud of our diversity. The fear of diversity comes from weakness, not from a strong culture.
I shall be even more clear on that: the very idea of a clash of civilisations is at odds with the most basic values of our European Union – let alone with reality. Throughout our European history, many have tried to unify our continent by imposing their own power, their own ideology, their own identity against the identity of someone else. With the European project, after World War II, not only we accepted diversity: we expressed a desire for diversity to be a core feature of our Union. We defined our civilisation through openness and plurality: a mind‐set based on blocs does not belong to us.
Some people are now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be a good European citizen, that more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe. These people are not just mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe – that is my core message – they have no clue what Europe and the European identity are.
This is our common fight: to make this concept accepted both in Europe and beyond Europe. For Europe and Islam face some common challenges in today’s world. The so‐called Islamic State is putting forward an unprecedented attempt to pervert Islam for justifying a wicked political and strategic project. Talking about Da’esh, the king of Jordan told the European Parliament a few months ago said: “The motive is not faith, it is power; power pursued by ripping countries and communities apart in sectarian conflicts, and inflicting suffering across the world”.
Western media like to refer to Daʼesh with the world “medieval”. This does not help much to understand the real nature of the threat we are facing. Daʼesh is something completely new. This is a modern movement, reinterpreting religion in an innovative and radical way.
It is a movement that, rather than preserving Islam, wants us to trash centuries of Islamic culture in the name of their atrocities. Da’esh is not a State, and it is not a State for Islam. The Grand Imam of al Azhar, Ahmed el Tayeb, argued: “There is no Islamic State, but a number of Islamic countries that the terrorists are trying to destroy.”
This is the reality we face and we don’t say this often, but we should do so to dismantle their narrative. Sometimes, by describing the atrocities of Da’esh, we do them a favour: atrocities are part of their propaganda. The more we describe them as evil, the happier they are.
Daʼesh is Islam’s worst enemy in today’s world. Its victims are first and foremost Muslim people. Islam is a victim itself.
This is not to say that we should overlook the ideology of Daʼesh. If we want to fight it, we need first of all to know it and to understand it. We need to know where it comes from, and how it got to be what it is.
First of all, I believe the Daʼesh propaganda fills a void, a vacuum. The terrorists are recruiting people who feel they do not hold a place in their own communities, that they do not belong in their own societies.
I was very much impressed, when I was visiting Tunis… Tunisia is a modern country an still is one of the countries with the highest number of foreign fighters in Da’esh. I asked a young girl, very engaged with civil society, why she believed so many people her age were joining Daʼesh. She told me something I will never forget: you know, people my age in Tunisia feel they have no place in the organigram. They are looking for their own box, for a role, for defining who they are. They ask: where is my place? What is my role? This is the real challenge not only in the Arab world, but here in Europe.
That is why I believe the best way to prevent radicalisation in Europe and in our region is not only education, but also employment. We have so many well educated and frustrated young people, with a lot of energy, a lot of willingness to find their place in their society and their community. And they have lost hope that they will be able to do so.
This does not justify the choice to turn to terrorism. People are responsible for their own actions and their own crimes. Still, if we look at ways to prevent radicalisation we need jobs and good jobs. Not just a place in the “organigram”, but a good place.
Da’esh longs for people who have lost their place in society, their role, their sense of belonging and hope. We need inclusive societies. So many times we have heard a narrative opposing security and open societies. It is a false dilemma. We should start saying more clearly that a society can be stable and safe only when it is democratic.
Of course I know each country has a specific history, and needs to follow its own path towards democracy. Not so long ago, and still today, there are people in “the West” arguing democracy can be exported militarily. We have all realised - in this room for sure – how bad this idea was. This does not mean we are not ready to support democracy and democratic processes: quite the contrary. But we need to consider the specificity of each process.
We need to show some humble respect for diversity. Diversity is the core feature of our European history, and it is our strength.
But we should also show respect for diversity when we look outside our borders. We need to understand diversity, understand complexity. This is difficult, but maybe a bit less difficult for us Europeans. We know diversity and complexity – especially here in Brussels – from our own experience.
For this reason I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture. Religion plays a role in politics – not always for good, not always for bad. Religion can be part of the process. What makes the difference is whether the process is democratic or not. That is what matters to us, the key point. We need to work for regional frameworks, in the Middle East and the Arab world, in which every one has a responsibility and a chance to contribute – Muslim, Christian, Jew or non-believer, Sunni or Shia, Arab, Kurd, whatever.
One of the weaknesses of our policies so far has been to focus on dividing lines, as if everyone can fit in a box. People do not live in boxes. People live in communities and societies. The more open the communities and the societies are, the better it is for the democratic process. All communities should be granted with their own rights and their own responsibilities, with an opportunity to do their part for the stability and the security of their own country. This is the path we are finally trying to follow in some key Arab countries, like Iraq: we are finally understanding we need to put people together, not to tear them apart. Inclusiveness can be the key to our success – both when we talk foreign policy and when we deal with our home affairs. Sometimes we go out of our borders and preach, but then we look at ourselves and we falter.
Enlargement processes involve us and our partners for years, but maybe we should also take time to brush up on the “acquis” with some Member States. We have a problem of internal coherence - when it comes to rights, to democracy, to the respect of diversity when it comes to some of the difficult choices we make, including on migration policies.
The battle for hearts and minds is not only a battle we need to fight in the Middle East, but also here inside our European Union. It is a difficult battle: this is not a popular argument, not an easy issue. After years of economic and political weakness, our societies are naturally afraid. When you are weak, the reaction is closing the door and pretending to solve issues with isolation.
On the contrary, the only chance we have as Europeans is to be proud and strong of our basics: and our basics are respect and diversity. Let me say something more about migration. We have supported the “bring back our girls” campaign for Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. There is such a contradiction between our solidarity when these girls are far away, and our lack of solidarity when they are at our door.
This is impossible to sustain. In the coming days and months we need to find solutions not only for the girls in Nigeria, but for their sisters and mothers and daughters who are forced to flee by the very same radicalised movements.
If we do not realise this, our whole message risks to sound empty. We need to pass a cultural message, to lay the basis for our political message: any attempt to divide the peoples of Europe into “us” and “them” brings us in the wrong direction.
The migrants and us. The Muslims and us. The Jews and us, as anti‐Semitism has not been defeated at all.
The “other” and us. We learnt from our history that we all are someone else’s “other”. The fear of the other can only lead us to new conflicts. I hope we can work together to increase our self confidence. When we say we are European, we should also remember what is the root of our European culture: our diversity. That is our strength, and we should learn to be proud of it.
Federica Mogherini
Rue Montoyer 40, B -‐ 1000 Brussels
Tel + 32 2 234 69 00
Fax + 32 2 280 03 83
info@feps-‐europe.eu
Merkel: intent on revenge / genocide of Germans
”
